[Contributed on 6/27/09.]
I was asked on our last conference call to revise 3d. I also added a few other suggestions.
Re: Walter's Text: Draft Agenda for Climate Change Committee conference call on 6/24/09:
3. d. Explore the opportunity and importance for CCDS and other socialists to (1) provide strategic leadership in describing the political-economic threat and harm to the world’s people and (2) therefore calling for a comprehensive planned response by the world’s powers to prevent these catastrophes where possible and prepare for the best possible outcome. I.e., what we must and would be doing if a major comet was on a collision course with earth. [Prepare for and prevent versus react to and repair a la Katrina.]
My proposed substitutes and comments:
CCDS should join other socialists and greens in providing strategic leadership in a broad organizing effort to prevent catastrophic climate change by focusing on achieving sharp reductions in carbon emissions in the United States, coupled with green job creation and reduction of air pollution especially in urban areas. Critical are efforts to sharply reduce the U.S. military budget, and to accelerate investment in energy efficiency and solar technologies such as wind. CCDS should join Rising Tide North America and other activist groups nationally and globally in promoting “a bottom-up approach to connecting the dots between oil, war, capitalism, coal, and the destabilization of the global climate” (http://www.risingtidenorthamerica.org/wordpress/what-is-rising-tide/) . Immediate attention should be on current legislation pending in Congress and grassroots organizing in preparation for the Copenhagen Climate Conference this December.
Walter's "Here are my notes and comments on the environmental points included in CCDS's revised Founding Document:
Climate Change Crisis and CCDS:"
Nationalization of Energy Necessary:
...nationalization of energy as the assured road to eliminating fossil fuels and opening the door to clean energy,... This statement implies centralization of control, while the next emphasizes bottom up ownership and control. Clarification is needed. Transnational energy corporations should be nationalized both by the U.S. government and by all countries with satellite operations. In the U.S. the optimal mix of national, regional and local ownership and control should ultimately arise out of a planning process entailing a combination of participatory and representative democracy.
Worker based economics should be Green:
...the solidarity economy involves the creation of new wealth in a green way with a component of worker and community ownership and control built into its structures from the start. It takes the form of worker-owned firms, peasant cooperatives, community owned credit unions and local schools and many other forms of mutual aid among the poor and unemployed....
Pending Planetary Disaster needs Environmental Socialism: [Eco-socialism ?]
The Socialism of the 21st Century must be Ecosocialism
...Socialism will be a society in harmony with the natural environment. The nature of pending planetary disasters necessitates a high level of planning. We need to redesign communities, introduce healthier foods, and rebuild sustainable agriculture-all on a global scale with high design, but on a human scale with mass participation of communities in diverse localities. We need growth, but intelligence growth in quality and wider knowledge with a lighter environmental footprint. A socialism that simply reproduces the wasteful expansion of an earlier capitalism creates more problems than it solves.... Rather: A vision of socialism that simply reproduces the wasteful expansion of an earlier capitalism is a delusion.
CCC Comments as of 6/23/09
-------------------------
Hi Climate Change Committee,
I have a couple of suggestions for panelists for the convention
workshop - Cynthia Kauffman and Mateo Nube. Steve can describe the two of them.
In Solidarity,
Karl
----------------------------------------
Meta:
I understand the arguments for and against capitalism and the inherent dialectic.
Is it possible that we in the US need a new form of socialism that has not yet been described?
I am very much in favor of ecosocialism, but understand it from more of an environmentalist AND indigenous position.
meta
-------------------------
David:
This author also signed the Belem Declaration. He makes some excellent
points towards its improvement. Note his stress on the convergence of
the current crisis in capital reproduction and the climate crisis, as
well as the following: " The concrete demands relating to the energy
system should give the absolute priority to energy efficiency and the
reduction of energy consumption. This a “sine qua non” condition for
the transition towards a system based on renewable sources."
http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article1633
-------------------------
David and Steve:
Steve,
My take on this is more fully spelled out in my March 2009 CNS paper,
Ecosocialism or Ecocatastrophe? but I agree with the view that necessary
(radical) action to avert C3 will likely open up a path to ecosocialist
transition because the main obstacle to success is MIC. As I put it in my CNS
paper " A global ‘‘solar capitalism’’ is an illusionary prospect, because
the level of red and green struggle required to solarize global capitalism
will itself likely result in ecosocialist transition. While individual
capitalist economies may solarize, the dominant role of the military industrial
complex in global capitalist reproduction makes its termination both an
essential requirement for and likely a direct path to ecosocialist transition
on a global scale."
I proudly signed the Belem Ecosocialist Declaration, recognizing that its
formulation could have been more dialectical as critics maintain.
However, the critique of this Declaration in its argument that the climate
crisis cannot be averted under capitalism, but requires the establishment of
socialism is one-sided since it neglects to recognize this critical section of
the document:
"To theorize and to work toward realizing the goal of green socialism does
not mean that we should not also fight for concrete and urgent reforms right
now. Without any illusions about “clean capitalism,” we must work to impose on
the powers that be – governments, corporations, international institutions –
some elementary but essential immediate changes:
* drastic and enforceable reduction in the emission of
greenhouse gases,
* development of clean energy sources,
* provision of an extensive free public transportation
system,
* progressive replacement of trucks by trains,
* creation of pollution clean-up programs,
* elimination of nuclear energy, and war spending.
These and similar demands are at the heart of the agenda of the Global Justice
movement and the World Social Forums, which have promoted, since Seattle in
1999, the convergence of social and environmental movements in a common
struggle against the capitalist system."
(For an accessible text go to: http://www.ecosocialistnetwork.org/
)
And if achieved, especially the "elimination of war spending", the
end of the rule of global capital will be on humanity's immediate agenda.
Surely, most if not all CCDS critics of Belem would agree with this section of
the Declaration. While the debate on these issues must continue, the emphasis
should be building unity in action starting with socialists and
anti-capitalists by converging on a program for real solutions, not the false
solutions presently offered. Further, our challenge in CCDS to put the
issue of C3 front and center, and to transform the vision of socialism into
ecosocialism. And why stop there, solar communism is humanity's contingent
future.
On
Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 11:11 PM, Steve
wrote:
Walter and others,
I didn't really take notes of our call either, but here is what my
concern is:
There is a clear division within the CCDS over the meaning of
ecosocialism and the implications that has on the strategy and tactics
of preventing the impending climate crisis. The criticism raised when
we were discussing Joel Kovel's Belem Declaration placed them in focus
for me.
The basic objection that Carl, Ted and many others in
CCDS leadership have stated concerns the position that the climate
crisis cannot be averted under capitalism, but requires the
establishment of socialism. Their position on the Belem Declaration was
that is was not dialectical, failing to recognize that there are
segments of the capitalist class that can and will support transitioning
to an economy based on sustainable energy. In this I largely agreed
with them and, in fact, voted against endorsing the Declaration on that
basis.
However, I support the basic analysis that capitalism, as a system, is
not compatible with resolving this crisis. I argue that solving this
crisis requires, fundamentally, that top-level economic decision be made
in the interest of society as a whole, not in the interest of the
capitalist class or individual capitalists. I argue not that socialism
is a prerequisite to struggles to delay the crisis, but that it is
necessary to guarantee averting it in the long run. In fact, I would
argue that winning this battle will, of necessity, bring about a
transition to some non-capitalist system.
So, I think this question should be addressed directly in the workshop,
since it is a discussion that needs to take place.
Looking forward to the next call in two weeks.
=========
Steve
--------------------
Added Link:
The Belem Ecosocialist Declaration
Posted on February 21st, 2009 by admin
[This was submitted by the Northern California CCDS for discussion, and
then as a proposal for adoption.]
---------------------
Draft Minutes from last Conference Call:
Climate Change Committee Conference Call 6-8-09
Attending: Walter, Steve, David, Meta
[If I missed anything or got it wrong, let me know or post to this list. W.]
Topic: Planning for “The Crisis of Climate Change” workshop, July 24,
3:45 PM - 7 PM ?
Steve agreed he will attend and be available to chair with others.
We discussed the need to set the focus and goals of the workshop. It was
agreed that the overall purpose was to help clarify an environmental
perspective for CCDS.
It was agreed that we should begin with an outline of the workshop and
it’s goals.
Then we should present a brief overview of the nature of the problem of
climate change.
We should then address, with different presenters, the main important
political controversies and differences on how to understand and respond
to climate change. This should include the main disagreements within
CCDS on political approaches, eco-socialism, the imperative for action
or a “prevention” approach and the various proposed solutions and their
scientific and political viability.
Steve stressed we should work to identify key points that we (and CCDS)
agree upon and what they could mean in preparing a program of action.
That this could help in drafting a position paper on response to the
Crisis of Climate Change for CCDS.
David stressed the need to frame the discussion and recommendations as
including both serious problems and positive opportunities.
Walter stressed the value of considering how CCDS could take a strategic
approach to both its leadership potential in putting forth a strong
position on addressing the Crisis of Climate Change and the need for a
global leadership response that addresses climate change in a socialist
manner if not name.
It was also agreed we would have another conference call in two weeks.
That we would attempt to firm up the agenda and presenters. Also, we
will attempt to post relevant documents and encourage workshop
participants to review them beforehand.
Walter will setup the next call.
Links:
1. The Founding Document, which has about 10 mentions of environmental
issues is at: http://www.ccds-discussion.org/
2. Carl comments on “Climate Catastrophe & Social Change: An
Eco-Socialist Perspective” http://www.ccds-discussion.org/?p=62
3. Under Capitalism, Climate Change and Successor Systems, “IS
SUSTAINABLE CAPITALISM AN OXYMORON?” by David Schweickart
http://www.ccds-discussion.org/?p=33
4. See 2 Responses to “Capitalism, Climate Change and Successor Systems”
by Pat and Per that follow.
http://www.ccds-discussion.org/?p=33#more-33
Walter
http://www.ccds-discussion.org/?p=67
--------------------------
Walter's draft position:
Proposed Environmental Position for CCDS
I think CCDS should have and put forth a strong position on the
Environment, one that presents a “What Is to be Done about Climate
Change” from a socialist point of view, which means a realistic,
scientific and humanistic based analysis of environmental changes and
the consequence, that stresses the need for leadership and those with
power over resources, to be called upon to articulate and adopt a global
plan and approach to preventing as much of the damage of from climate
change as possible in the interests of the majority of the people of the
world and that this CCDS “What is to Be Done on Climate Change” position
should be both progressive and positive and should be comprehensible, as
a call that can be replicated and copied by others as a response to and
a rational effort toward the best possible solution to the damages
caused by global capitalism to the environment and in the long term best
interests of the people of the world
This is based on idea that socialists everywhere have a role to play
that is specific and unique in calling for such leadership to create and
put forward such a plan in the interests of the people.